↓ Skip to main content

A systematic comparison of statistical methods to detect interactions in exposome-health associations

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic comparison of statistical methods to detect interactions in exposome-health associations
Published in
Environmental Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0277-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jose Barrera-Gómez, Lydiane Agier, Lützen Portengen, Marc Chadeau-Hyam, Lise Giorgis-Allemand, Valérie Siroux, Oliver Robinson, Jelle Vlaanderen, Juan R. González, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Paolo Vineis, Martine Vrijheid, Roel Vermeulen, Rémy Slama, Xavier Basagaña

Abstract

There is growing interest in examining the simultaneous effects of multiple exposures and, more generally, the effects of mixtures of exposures, as part of the exposome concept (being defined as the totality of human environmental exposures from conception onwards). Uncovering such combined effects is challenging owing to the large number of exposures, several of them being highly correlated. We performed a simulation study in an exposome context to compare the performance of several statistical methods that have been proposed to detect statistical interactions. Simulations were based on an exposome including 237 exposures with a realistic correlation structure. We considered several statistical regression-based methods, including two-step Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS2), the Deletion/Substitution/Addition (DSA) algorithm, the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Group-Lasso INTERaction-NET (GLINTERNET), a three-step method based on regression trees and finally Boosted Regression Trees (BRT). We assessed the performance of each method in terms of model size, predictive ability, sensitivity and false discovery rate. GLINTERNET and DSA had better overall performance than the other methods, with GLINTERNET having better properties in terms of selecting the true predictors (sensitivity) and of predictive ability, while DSA had a lower number of false positives. In terms of ability to capture interaction terms, GLINTERNET and DSA had again the best performances, with the same trade-off between sensitivity and false discovery proportion. When GLINTERNET and DSA failed to select an exposure truly associated with the outcome, they tended to select a highly correlated one. When interactions were not present in the data, using variable selection methods that allowed for interactions had only slight costs in performance compared to methods that only searched for main effects. GLINTERNET and DSA provided better performance in detecting two-way interactions, compared to other existing methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Student > Master 9 8%
Professor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 16%
Environmental Science 12 10%
Computer Science 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Mathematics 6 5%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 38 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,658,951
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#681
of 1,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,497
of 312,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#23
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.